So this is a synopsis of what I read about Michael Flynn and what he did:
Flynn contacted a Russian diplomat about not reacting to Obama-era sanctions and also about not voting for a UN resolution to condemn Israel for building settlements.
This all happened in late December three to four weeks prior to Trump's inauguration. This supposedly all is in the context of trying to prove some sort of Russian collusion resulted in an upset victory in the presidential election by Donald Trump. Again, the dateline of Flynn's actions seems to be
well after the election.
Are we to assume that all prior incoming administrations have not had some sort of diplomatic contact with other nations?
A simple Google search of the Obama team turns up that other governments were lining up to seek influence with the new administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/washington/14policy.htmlEven before the election, senior advisers to Mr. Obama — including Anthony Lake, the former national security adviser — had been meeting with European officials, including Pierre Vimont, the French ambassador to Washington, and Nigel Sheinwald, the British ambassador, European diplomats said. British and French officials are urging the Obama team to work on tone and mood before sitting down to talk with Iran, out of concern that Mr. Obama’s pledge to open talks with Iran without preconditions could lead to trouble.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/world/americas/12iht-obama.1.17750367.htmlhttps://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/presidential-transitions-and-foreign-policyhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/world/americas/12iht-obama.1.17750367.htmlhttp://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jun/02/kimberley-strassel/did-obama-seek-back-channel-talks-iran-during-his-/There were claims of back channel communications between Candidate Obama and Iran prior to the 2008 election via a former Iranian ambassador. Of course, the former ambassador denied any knowledge of this, but he might have only been lying to reporters and not the FBI which was Flynn's big mistake.
Clearly, from reading the articles above about the 2008 transition, world leaders seek contact with the new American President-Elect. This does not seem to be unusual and it does not seem to be unusual for the POTUS-Elect or members of his transition team to meet with or field phone calls from foreign leaders and diplomats. I'd be willing to bet there have been plenty of conversations much like Flynn had with his Russian contact with transition teams in the past.
My point is, the media makes it sound like much skullduggery, a national security advisor being in contact with an ambassador for another country assuring them their administration will be much friendlier. Although, this does not sound like a terribly rare occurrence. Perhaps Flynn may have over-stepped by asking Russia to vote a certain way on an UN resolution or asking them not to retaliate over sanctions imposed by the current administration.
I do appreciate the news accounts of Obama's transition team seeming to respect that President Bush would still be the President until inauguration day and stayed away from any diplomatic commitments. At least that is the public assertion. We really have no idea what may or may not have gone on in phone conversations. I think it is a safe bet that there were Reagan operatives working around the clock between his election in 1980 and inauguration in 1981 to get the hostages released.
I guess, other than lying to investigators, what really did Michael Flynn do which was terribly different than times past in administration changes? It's not like he bilked the government out of millions or was arranging the import of kilos of cocaine or shipments of arms. If anything, Flynn on one count was simply asking a foreign government to sit on ice for a bit longer and wanted to make sure they did not create complications for his new employer. On the other count, he asked a representative of another nation to not vote for a UN resolution. I don't see anything which amounts to treason. There is perhaps some over-reach but it is beyond me why a man of principle like Michael Flynn supposedly has shown throughout his military career would even bother to lie about what was said.
This is my take anyhow.
Anyone here knows I'm no apologist for POTUS Trump, I'm simply trying to figure out why there is all this ginned up interest in what happened six weeks
following the election with Michael Flynn when the whole issue supposedly has been Russian meddling in the election.
